Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

So you are mistaken to claim the reply was anything to do with the interview on the bombing and security
No, I didn't 'claim it', but that is what I understood from your post. Misunderstood.

Let the government officials who decide bombing is the answer be the first ones to die and there will soon be a swift resolution to the problem. Won't happen though as someone else's blood being spilt will be done away from Westminster.

If bombing does take place what happens to the country afterwards when their utilities and services are destroyed?

I doubt the government officials have learned to fly jets, in fact don't think they are even in the RAF at all!
The country afterwards is rebuilt, many towns and cities there are already destroyed, either by bombs or by ISIS who have a nasty habit of taking anything of value and then slashing and burning before moving on.

act.thesyriacampaign.org/sign/we-want-to-go-home

Syrian refugees do not want us to bomb them. They want us to stop Assad bombing them. Most Syrian refugees are fleeing from Assad, not IS.

The actual refugees are not being bombed. Syrian civilians, who still live there of course want Assad to stop it, and perhaps we can work towards that end if we are involved, but the main thing from our point of view is to stop ISIS, and just because it will be difficult is no reason not to try.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic Barrowlass. How on earth could the problem of defeating these appalling monsters be resolved swiftly if government officials were to be the first to die? I'm not sure that Isil would care one at or the other never mind desist their murderous agenda.

Well, Corbyn's giving his party a free vote! Takes the pressure off him personally, I suppose.

His MPs, I mean, before anyone points that out!

If bombing does take place what happens to the country afterwards when their utilities and services are destroyed?

Have you seen any pictures of Syria over the past four years Barrowlass?
I get regular updates from a friend in Turkey who is helping the refugees there, and Syrians still stuck in Syria. Just horrendous.

They are proposing targeted bombing, very precise, not wholesale bombing of cities (what's left of them).

Not saying I agree or disagree btw. Still thinking and thankful I don't have to vote.

If bombing does take place what happens to the country afterwards when their utilities and services are destroyed?
www.google.co.uk/search?q=pictures+of+bombed+cities+in+syria&biw=1024&bih=677&tbm=isch&imgil=2u7PGIzS_XdlUM%253A%253BFxTXYY9ZbqgghM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.timesofisrael.com%25252Fmajor-parts-of-syria-have-effectively-been-bombed-back-to-ottoman-times%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=2u7PGIzS_XdlUM%253A%252CFxTXYY9ZbqgghM%252C_&usg=__OJ7Y4IzSqvPGhTIBZL7dmbpihwk%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjm7Nv-1LjJAhWJ1xoKHdEoDWYQyjcIMw&ei=RYZcVqa2Momva9HRtLAG#imgrc=2u7PGIzS_XdlUM%3A&usg=__OJ7Y4IzSqvPGhTIBZL7dmbpihwk%3D

Just makes you want to weep.

Well, Corbyn's giving his party a free vote!

He could hardly do much else considering his views on terrorists and bombing.
Remember that just two weeks after the Brighton bombing Corbyn invited IRA bombers to the House of Commons.

Which way will McDonnell vote?
John McDonnell said the 'ballot, the bomb and the bullet' would unite Ireland at the height of the IRA's murderous war with Britain. Labour's shadow chancellor also said councillors who boycotted pro-republican meeting he spoke at during the Troubles were 'gutless wimps' and joked that “kneecapping might help change their mind”.

Presumably it's OK to bomb, kill, maim and kneecap British citizens including children, and to celebrate the 'achievements' of terrorists but against their 'principles' to bomb ISIL murderers.

Double standards? Or is this how 'pacifists' think?

Still thinking myself btw but I am beginning to wonder if I am a pacifist if that is typical of their thought processes.

Anniebach. I was more shocked that you hadn't heard of Guilford (some time back) than that you didn't know IS had named leaders.

Date, Petra?

I have just received a long and detailed reply from my MP about how he intends to vote if a vote does go ahead.

I was extremely impressed by his knowledge, due to having worked for 10 years as an aid worker with refugees.

If I can try to briefly sum up his reply it was this.

As an aid worker he learned that what happens after military intervention is vital as without comprehensive planning a space is left for lawlessness and radicalism to grow.

He wants to be clear that the government will take an active roll in the humanitarian effort.
Sufficient money is committed to this aim.
There must be comprehensive and detailed planning before military action.
He goes on to talk about the complicated situation in Syria
He argues that nonintervention is not a passive act, as it allows the status quo to continue.
Past acts by the UK have undoubtedly contributed to the current situation.
He will vote for intervention if those conditions listed above are met

Oh come on, JessM - do you need a date to remember that?
And Birmingham?
And Warrington?
and the rest
Or perhaps you are very young

I will have a look to see which way my MP is voting.

What puzzles me is that everyone speaks as if Britain would be the only ones intervening militarily and what do we do afterwards??

Surely that is what the UN is for?
Or am I being naive?

My MP was quite specific and not the UN about the UK being actively involved and went on to outline how this should be achieved.

Petra, I have heard of Guilford , I followed the case of the Guilford four , you said I posted sometime ago I said I had never heard of it?

Do tell me the thread , Thank you

The men invited to the house by Corbyn were Sinn Fein MP's voted for by voters in Northern Ireland

The first time, not the more recent time. Or perhaps some people on here are very young and don't remember.

Corbyn was heavily criticised after he invited Adams — along with other Sinn Féin members — to the House of Commons shortly after the Brighton bombing in 1984. A point which Andrew Neil brought up with Corbyn on the Sunday Politics show over the weekend:

AN: On Northern Ireland you didn’t just deal with Sinn Fein, you dealt with the IRA. Three weeks after the Brighton bomb in which the IRA had tried to destroy the democratically elected government of this country, you invited two convicted IRA terrorists to the House of Commons.
JC: They were former prisoners who had come out of prison, women who had come out of prison, came to parliament actually at a meeting that had been arranged long before to talk about prison conditions and rehabilitation of prisoners.
AN: They were IRA.
JC: Is there anything wrong with that since they had a spent conviction? Surely –
AN: Their organisation had just tried to blow up the British government.
JC: Andrew, the whole history –
AN: Did you not think about that?
JC: of course I thought about it and I would
AN: You still invited them in.

Still the exchange hasn’t appeared to put Corbyn off meeting up with Adams for a second time.

Wriggle, wriggle.

The second time, of course, they were as entitled as any other MP to go to the House of Commons.

Sorry, thought you were referring to the MP's

I am still disgusted with Cameron supporting apartheid then 19 years later praising Mandela

And as for Thatcher inviting Pinochet for tea

I totally agree with you. Well said!

Yes, not that keen on Peter Hain (orange tan) but I do respect him for his stance on apartheid.